Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Monday 05 December 2005 06:00 am, rob AT robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting Stefan Tiedje <Stefan-Tiedje AT addcom.de>:
> > The demand of compatibility is just the demand of creators who want to
> > make derivative works out of different licensed sources.
>
> It may be. Certainly I gnash my teeth each time I hit an image that is
> under the
> FDL or NC-SA.
>
> But once it becomes possible to move work or derivatives under a different
> license, it becomes possible to choose a license for reasons other than
> compatibility. To choose the "best" license for, say, giving as few
> rights away
> as possible or for advertise one's political beliefs. BY-SA doesn't allow
> advertising or proselytising the way the FDL does. And the CA license is
> noncommercial...
>
> The ability to keep derivatives of a work under the same license, where
> that license's effects are well known, trusted, and better than the
> alternatives, is
> key to building "the commons". Allowing derivatives to escape from that
> commons
> to licenses with different effects doesn't make those licenses
> "compatible" and
> doesn't help build the commons.

While I agree with much or you analysis, the problem is that the multiple CC 
licenses do not contribute to building "the commons" but to building multiple 
"largely non-interacting" commons. The other licenses have the same problems.
>
> > The only way I
> > see, is to ask those who use an incompatible license to allow the use
> > under a different license and thats it. Might be tedious, but I don't
> > believe in a 'one size fits all' license. (Otherwise there would be only
> > one cc license, but its more than one for very good reasons)
>
> Lawrence Lessig thinks otherwise :-) :
>
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709
>
> The problem with wishing that BY-SA, FDL, FAL and BBC-CA were the same is
> that they aren't. They are very different in their effects.
>
> CC should concentrate on slowly converting projects to using their
> licenses, not
> quickly converting their licenses to be usable by projects that have chosen
> problematic licenses with no hope of return.

This I agree with but I tend to go further. I have no particular interest in 
promoting CC other than a copyleft (Libre) commons in the long haul. In the 
short term, I am willing to be flexible.

>
> - Rob.
all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22